Comments

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/09/history-suggests-2016-will-be-a-bad-year-for-democrats/trackback/

But…something weird happened in this election.
The left learned this time that it can win an election at will on election day.
There was all sorts of chicanery pulled by the leftists radicals this election and they managed to pull Obama out from certain defeat.

They weren’t afraid of being caught because Holder had their backs and the unions had Obama watching their backs.

This is a new animal that has just arrived on the scene that can’t be compared to anything before it.
You have touch screen voting with it’s hackable software.
You have same day voter registration.
You have no I.D. to vote voting.
You have the complicit media 100% in the tank for one party swaying the elctorate with propaganda over four years
You have a sizable number of minorities that wasn’t around forty or fifty years ago and will be even larger in four more years.

So,don’t count on this cyclical theory being applicable to the next election.

After watching a good, honest, decent man who loves his country get torn down and defeated by an opponent who lied openly and constantly, who had nothing to offer but smears, hate, and demonization, I find it quite impossible to be optimistic about any future election.

Learning from the past is good but thinking that it somehow reflects the future is misguided. Republicans won’t win again until they recognize and correct the reasons why a large portion of their base stayed home and didn’t vote in one of the most polarizing elections of the last 30 years.

But…something weird happened in this election.
.
.
.
So,don’t count on this cyclical theory being applicable to the next election.

Whoa, whoa, whoa…before we get all black helicopters and mind-control-drugs-administered-through-jet-trails paranoid, let’s point out a few facts:

1) Not every precinct has touch-screen voting, and in the cases I’ve read this year where vote irregularities have occurred, the problems reported by voters have been unable to be duplicated by authorities. That’s not to say there aren’t potential issues, but it’s like casting voting machine maker Diebold (better known to most for ATM & banking hardware) as a Republican stooge designed to turn out votes for the GOP candidate [since that worked out so well in 2008 & 2012, perhaps George Soros should buy the company].

2) Same-day registration has been going on a long time. When the National Voter Registration Act of 1993—commonly known as the “Motor Voter Act”—came into full effect, all states were required to offer voter registration services via DMV offices. Six states, however, received exemptions, with two (including my state) granted an exemption in exchange for at-the-polls registration. It’s not an ideal system, but it doesn’t seem to be a major problem, unless it’s coupled with ineffective purge and cross-reference operations.

3) No-ID voting has been the norm; it’s only been in recent years that a push for at-the-polls positive voter identification has been prevalent. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but allegations of voter fraud have occurred for decades and may have already swung a presidential election (see 1960). So again, it’s not a new phenomenon.

4) Minority voting is on the increase, to be sure; but is it really any different, in many respects than when women received the right to vote? As Dan mentioned, it likely did have an impact on the next presidential election of the time; but that has only increased throughout the years so that that minority has now become the majority in many instances.

I know that a Perfect Storm argument is trying to be made here, but I’m not sure it’s quite as simple as that. You can have perfect compliance with all the laws and no hanky-panky going on and still have a superior GOTV effort, as appears to be the case with the 2012 election.
(Yes, you can have both, too; but it’s a little harder to achieve, with such diminished enthusiasm.)

I am really not sure that I want to hear theories about how great the GOP is going to do 4 years from now.

They once again offered a losing candidate whose primary qualifications were 1) it was his turn, and 2) electability.

In fact, it was his turn to lose and he lost to the worst President in the history of the nation.

It is a little bit too early to start making such assertions. Four years is an eternity and with four more years of Obama, it is an eternity of nightmares.

Even if the GOP should take control in 2016, they are likely to offer such corrupt and inept “leaders” like Boehner and McConnell and Romney with no spine and no vision which means we get four more years of ever-increasing government from the GOP. That is not change to look forward to.

Politics is the gutter. ‘Our side’ better learn that and get in and start playing their game. I’ve been saying that for awhile and all I hear is ‘we can’t stoop to their level’. McCain was an ace at that to the point of not even defending his own running mate, but defending Obama more.
Why couldn’t Romney go on the View with those hags? Or Jon Stewart? Hire the guy who wrote your speech at that Catholic black tie event, for those appearances. Or even talk radio, national and local? Oh we can’t do that because we don’t want them thinking Rush is going to give us talking points.

Annie the people are right when they say ‘we cannot stoop at their level. We are different, we are better, they are subhumans. To them it is natural to call Ann Romney a f**** C*** B*** W**** (fill in with all the lowest insults you can possibly find).

The most our side can do is call that broad cow Michelle Antoniette.

The only way to go is cut all ties with those subhumans. Imagine all conservative churches stop volunteering for certain segments of the population that are actively calling us racists every minute. That will leave a mark.

Help only when you are 300% sure you are helping a conservative, possibly one that also votes.

I agree, mostly, with Susan. We are better people, we need to be. That people like Richard believe that nothing should come between a man and his base impulses, doesn’t mean we should just give up and act on ours.

No president, until this week, has ever won reelection with fewer votes than he had in his initial election.

Yup. Obama lost support. Large amounts. It bodes very ill for him and his party.

We’re hearing a lot about the GOP needing to fix its minority outreach. That’s true. Know what else? Democrats need even more badly, to fix their majority outreach.

There was all sorts of chicanery pulled by the leftists radicals this election and they managed to pull Obama out from certain defeat.

They weren’t afraid of being caught because Holder had their backs and the unions had Obama watching their backs.

Then we’d better get to work on exposing/stopping that.

Republicans won’t win again until they recognize and correct the reasons why a large portion of their base stayed home

It’s looking like the ones who stayed home were Republican-leaning marginal voters; people whose turnout Obama intended to depress with all the “Romney will give your wife cancer” ads, that Romney barely bothered to defend himself against. Let that be a lesson to future nominees.

The Left is drawing the wrong lessons from this election, as we speak. They think that negative and “small” campaigning, aimed at voter-microtargeting and driving down voter turnout, works. Because it just did. But it won’t forever. And in the meanwhile, it makes them even more the bad guys.

They employ “objective responsibility” and have a “relativism of values to each actor’s needs and perspectives.”

“Right action is that which is instrumental in satisfying the self’s needs and occasionally other’s” (needs).

They display a “naive egalitarianism, orientation to exchange and reciprocity.”

These people are manipulated and led by employing the “Role Conformity” stage in which “action is evaluated in terms of intention” and the authority rewards “good-boy/good-girl orientation.”

So, in these terms, the Democrats organize the sheeple and drive them to the polls. The sheeple go willingly and enthusiastically because they perceive and feel gratification both at the personal level and as a member of the cult/”community”/commune.

“Fats” Waller sang some telling lyrics in Ain’t Misbehavin’: “Find out what they like and how they like it and let ‘em have it just that way.”

The clear message is basic marketing. Identify your target audience, find out what they want (or think they want) and give it to them.

Now, in politics, you can’t often deliver immediately in a campaign. But you can easily feed the sheeple group a continuous dose of what they want to hear.

It is not a positive notion that many people want to hear their sense of victimhood being validated, but it is entirely true. For the most part, blacks have a built in sixth sense for signs of discrimination, rejection based on race and probable racism. When a black hears over and over and over again that a candidate or party or group is racially insensitive or worse, it is a very natural reaction to be wary or that candidate or party or group.

The same wariness model can be applied to liberal women, various Hispanic groups, gays, unions, economic classes, geographic regions, etc.

Understand and never forget Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. There are two lists of rules. The first is the practical guide for herding the sheeple. The second set of rules deal with the “ethics” of herding the sheeple. The first set of rules is how to demagogue and the second set is how to play “innocent” to demagoguing.

Rules for Power Tactics:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:

1. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.
11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

If we plan to beat the Democrats at this game, we must come down to this level and forgo our moral development understandings in exchange for fighting dirtier than the enemy. It is trench and gas warfare. It is cultural terrorism. It is divide and conquer.

The right could go down the alinksy path, but I don’t think they are willing to go there.

Example: Under Obamacare, women/teenagers will have the right to subsidized birth control. This includes tubal ligation. If a nefarious rightist wanted to split the feminist and underclass coalition, they could go into underclass neighborhoods and offer a bunch of 18 years olds a grand or two in cash to go get sterilized (on the taxpayers dime). The outcry would be ferocious. Would the right be willing to go down in gutter that far? In my estimation, not yet.

NDT, that is what I mean by fighting back. In small ways and big.
My point in my above comment, was that the GOP doesn’t even fight. Period. Everytime Bush took a breath, Reid and Pelosi, were in front of cameras pounding lied day in and day out. Where is the GOP on this regarding what Barry has done? You don’t have to give up your morals to point out in LOUD COLORFUL attention getting language, day in and day out, in fighting back.

What do have instead? Sniveling misreading spineless politicians, on our side. Boehner needs to go. He should be primaried out.

The right could go down the alinksy path, but I don’t think they are willing to go there.

Totally agree.

The “right” is “burdened” with higher moral development and far stronger code of ethics. We can all revert, when necessary, to the primitive, but not because we prefer it. I have fuel, ammunition, a water supply system, food and medical supplies stored for a possible period of protracted crisis. I have liquor and cigarettes to trade to the hoi polloi. Gold and silver will be useful for trade with other levels prepared to weather a crisis.

If some miracle resolution to our financial mess heads off Armageddon, what have I lost for the preparation? I sure don’t want to depend on the FEMA arm of government for my safety and security.

I do not want to be a primitive, but I may not have the choice. Arriving at an intersection and being killed in a crash is no time to start talking about getting there a little bit later or a little bit earlier in order to have cheated reality.

Most honorable people do not want to associate themselves with Alinsky or Democrat practices. To meet them head on and out do them is really quite unthinkable.

Until the Republicans will put the Democrats on the constant defensive for the trash they throw, the Republicans will stay on the constant defensive receiving the trash the Democrats throw.

My long comment @ #16 lays out the entire Democrat game plan. If you know and understand the game plan, you really should be able to check their every move. And you should be able to do it without resorting to their tactics. But first, you have to finally stand up their demagoguing and face them down every time they try to let a snake loose.

Jessie Jackson made a fortune shaking down selected big corporations with his rent-a-mob racist tactics. Somewhere, sometime it becomes necessary to grow a spine and face down the grifters and political conmen.

I think you are making too much out of the voting. A real indicator or precursor is to look at the makeup of the legislature. In the 62nd Congress, (Taft´s last) The Democrats seized control of the House from the Republicans in 61st Dems 172 to 228. The Senate remained Republican with 51 but the Dems added 3 more with the admission of Arizona and New Mexico into statehood. In 1914 the Dems controlled both houses of the legislature. In 1918 the 66th Congress (Wilson´s last) both houses turned Republican with 220 representatives and 49 senators, an increase of 7. Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover enjoyed having both houses Republican during the roaring 20´s. In 1930, the House went Democrat going from 167 seats to 220 while the Republicans had a one vote majority in the Senate, 48 to 47 and one Independent. All during Roosevelt´s lifetime the Democrats controlled both houses. That´s how the Supreme Court got stacked with progressive jurists. Any reason to believe Obama won´t do the same. After WWII, Truman had to deal with a Republican legislature in the 80th Congress, which flipped back to Democrat in 1948. The 83rd Congress gave Eisenhower the luxury of Republicans controlling the legislature. The House made massive gains going from 119 seats to 221, while the advantage in the Senate was slight 48,47, and 1 Independent. The Democrats controlled the House all the way until Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America. Reagan had coattails to gain a majority in the Senate the 97th Congress until the 100th Neither GHW Bush nor Nixon ever enjoyed having his party in control. If Nixon had, maybe he would have finished out his second term. Does anybody in their right mind think that Dems in the Benghazi and now the Iran attempt on the drone coverup would ever tell Obama that there is a cancer on the presidency and that he should resign? I doubt it. I don´t think Democrats have any integrity.

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**